The GBG policy meeting (to discuss the non-renewal policy) was held this past Tuesday, August 25th. In attendance were at least 25 principals--primarily middle and high school--12 central office staff, seven school board members, and three lawyers from the law department. Four of the principals from my district--district 7--were in attendance.
I think concerns were created for the principals (mainly due to rumors) that the BOE could remove autonomy that the superintendent had given the principals to make decisions on non-renewals as it applies to their staffing. It was never and is not my intention as a board member to prevent a principal from making decisions based on what is best for their school. I feel like there was really good dialogue between the principals and the board members present.
At the end of the meeting I reiterated that as an elected official I took my oath of office very seriously. My job is to uphold the laws of the State of Tennessee and to make sure that the board policies are aligned with those laws. The law is very clear that only the LEA (superintendent) has the ability to non-renew a teacher. Dr. McIntyre can and has delegated that to his principals. How much he oversees that is at his discretion; however, under the law the implication is that the consequences for those decisions are also squarely on his shoulders. The law does give the Board the right to review those decisions. Whether the Board votes to review the superintendent's decisions has not been determined...yet.
I think concerns were created for the principals (mainly due to rumors) that the BOE could remove autonomy that the superintendent had given the principals to make decisions on non-renewals as it applies to their staffing. It was never and is not my intention as a board member to prevent a principal from making decisions based on what is best for their school. I feel like there was really good dialogue between the principals and the board members present.
At the end of the meeting I reiterated that as an elected official I took my oath of office very seriously. My job is to uphold the laws of the State of Tennessee and to make sure that the board policies are aligned with those laws. The law is very clear that only the LEA (superintendent) has the ability to non-renew a teacher. Dr. McIntyre can and has delegated that to his principals. How much he oversees that is at his discretion; however, under the law the implication is that the consequences for those decisions are also squarely on his shoulders. The law does give the Board the right to review those decisions. Whether the Board votes to review the superintendent's decisions has not been determined...yet.
AN UPDATE...
After writing this blog, Dr. McIntyre requested the GBG policy be put on the agenda for discussion this week. The law department, the superintendent, and the Chairman of the Board have made revisions and I have some major concerns:
1) The additional language added uses the evaluation process as the means of discussing teacher deficiencies. In the two hour meeting, most of the board members expressed concerns about this. I believe that if there are deficiency concerns with and educator, the concerns should be addressed outside of an observation...in other words, the deficiency discussion should be above and beyond the evaluation discussion. Every educator has an area of refinement or area they are working on in their evaluation. By putting the deficiency discussions into the normal evaluation process, you put all teachers at risk of non renewal. In addition, principals aren't always the evaluator, and lead teachers are also used to perform evaluations.
2) I can not and will not support an open ended policy. Reminds me of "you have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Or as a Central Office staffer once said, "the devil is in the details."
These are my concerns, what are yours? Please comment and let me know what you think?
1) The additional language added uses the evaluation process as the means of discussing teacher deficiencies. In the two hour meeting, most of the board members expressed concerns about this. I believe that if there are deficiency concerns with and educator, the concerns should be addressed outside of an observation...in other words, the deficiency discussion should be above and beyond the evaluation discussion. Every educator has an area of refinement or area they are working on in their evaluation. By putting the deficiency discussions into the normal evaluation process, you put all teachers at risk of non renewal. In addition, principals aren't always the evaluator, and lead teachers are also used to perform evaluations.
2) I can not and will not support an open ended policy. Reminds me of "you have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Or as a Central Office staffer once said, "the devil is in the details."
These are my concerns, what are yours? Please comment and let me know what you think?
RSS Feed